As the Board of the Toronto Cyclists Union, we sent out the above letter in the hopes of beginning a discussion regarding the future of this organization, and how a name change to Cycle Toronto will allow us to better achieve our advocacy goals, and to honour the importance of “safe streets, a healthy city, a vibrant voice.”

The online discussion so far has been amazing – we’ve been blown away by the support, humbled by the critiques, and moved by the passion that our members feel for the organization. We feel our original letter did not provide enough insight and justification for why we support the name change. We hope that by presenting these key points below, we are able to further the discussion and better inform our members for the vote at the AGM.

Keeping cycling political, yet non-partisan. As an advocacy organization, we work within the political structures of the City to create change. To be effective in this, we need a membership that crosses all boundaries – political, geographical, cultural, economic – and represents all Torontonians who care about cycling and believe in safe streets. While not all Torontonians identify as cyclists, a City cycling survey indicated that at least 54% of Torontonians cycle. We can’t control the connections people have with the word union, but we have found our expansion into new constituencies restricted by those connections. Cycle Toronto is simple, action-oriented and defines the transformation of Toronto into the bicycle-friendly city we’re all aspiring for.

Sustainable revenue sources and staffing. We had an amazing year for growth – almost doubling our membership – all of which wouldn’t have been possible without bringing on a new staff member last spring and extra staff during the summer. With a significant grant coming to an end this year, we need to seek out alternative funding sources to keep the momentum going and maintain (and hopefully increase) our staff. We have had a number of organizational and business members showing initial interest, then being turned off by the name. Many other organizations (Transportation Alternatives, Active Transportation Alliance, Citizens for Safe Cycling, Bicycle Transportation Alliance, Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, and the Bicycle Alliance of Washington) don’t get much in grants, but are open and accessible to business partners. In our case, one platinum member at 5000 dollars is the equivalent of 166 individual members. Young organizations like ours are financially vulnerable, and we need more resources: more staff, a larger budget, more outreach, and more opportunities to help make the streets a safer place. We also need to prepare for a time when grants will no longer be a option, and we see our future partners as a means to grow a sustainable, healthy organization. Have a look for yourselves at https://bikeunion.to/learn-about-business-membership. The strategy to increase organizational and business memberships is strictly non-ideological. It is not pro-business or anti-union. It simply allows a more direct dialogue with organizations and businesses and their staff about how to support our us.

Improved exposure. We recently had a large insurance company inquire about providing cycling courses to its customers. After calling one of our partner organizations for help, they were directed to us. The next day, they called back and said that they could not work with us because we were a union. If we want to develop services like these (which would help fund advocacy programs), we feel our name shouldn’t be an obstacle to this. On a similar note, so far three local bike shops have chosen not to post our flyers and/or join our member discount program because they felt our name wouldn’t sit well with their customers.

Consistency. The bike union has been referred to variously as the Toronto Cyclists Union, the bike union, TCU, BU, Cyclists Union, Toronto Cyclists, and variations thereof. While we have developed internal branding guidelines, we would like a name that is more easily referred to by the media and our members. Cycle Toronto, in its brevity, will be less easily abbreviated and is less of a mouthful. The logo and branding will remain the same, so brand recognition should not be an issue.

Reduced short-term administrative effort and cost. By changing the name now, rather than further down the road, we are avoiding the added costs of re-branding later. We are currently finalizing a plan for the marketing transition, and the goal if we change is to continue using our current stock of swag over the next year. The issue has been carefully considered, and the costs that would be incurred are within our means.

Be assured that the proposal to change the name was planned and deliberated for many months, with input from marketing and branding experts, and feedback from staff, board members, partners and members. While it has been an exciting process, it has also been challenging, and we appreciate member feedback and support on the issue. On May 2, it will be time for members to make a decision. And while we encourage you to vote for the new name at the AGM, we assure you no matter what happens with this issue, the board and staff will continue to push forward for better cycling policies, increased ridership, improved and expanded infrastructure and a great Toronto.

Having heard the arguments for the name change back in January, I fully support the change, even though I do like the word “union”. Obviously, from a marketing and branding perspective, union needs to be dropped, as we really aren’t a labour union. Whatever one thinks of unions, it is a polarizing word that doesn’t help with our mission in the biking community, inhibits us from growing the membership, and thwarts building partnerships with other organizations throughout the city.

I too was intrigued by the real world problems that can arise when “union” is part of an organization’s name. At the time I joined the TCU, it didn’t even occur to me that anyone would confuse the group with a labour union. After all, corporate names like Union Pacific signify only that a merger has taken place, and staid groups like the Oxford Union debating society use the word to suggest that it brings people together who may share different opinions.

One of the downsides of Cycle Toronto: it isn’t only the main TCU name that must be changed. My ward group has built a pleasant rhyme into its moniker: TCU22. CT22 doesn’t work as well!

Another rather trivial consideration is that Ford-voting, Sun-reading yahoos may substitute the name “Psycho Toronto” for “Cycle Toronto”. It’s vulgar. I’m willing to look the other way if I hear this insult. But believe me, it’s going to happen.

How is it possible that we could have doubled our membership with such a terrible name?

Seriously, though. I think it should be left well enough alone. The name is what attrracted me to join in the first place. It implies strong action, that something positive will happen when I pay my membership dues. “Cycle Toronto” implies I will receive PR newsletters. Or that is is some agency of the City.

Or that it is a bike store. You’ll be depriving some small independent business of a great brand if you go this route.

My point is, it’s nowhere near as clear and strong. You should do a survey of non-cyclists in some other city and ask them to describe the organization that bears each of those names. I suspect you’ll find the decriptions for Cycle Toronto all over the place, while responses Toronto Cyclists Union will hew pretty close to reality.

Thanks for the feedback, Tim. The board did shop the name around to a network of organizations across North America and received strong support for Cycle Toronto but certainly understand your point. Please come vote May 2nd!

Just want to point out that shopping the name around to other bike organizations is a far cry from conducting a survey among non-partisans to see if they can recognize what the brand name stands for.

Ask Joe Blow in Estevan, SK what he thinks the Toronto Cyclists Union does and I’ll bet he answers pretty close to what this org is about. Now ask him what Cycle Toronto does. Bet he doesn’t have a clue.

Changing the name is a major deal and therefore needs a strong and compelling reason to do it. Cycle Toronto is not a strong or compelling name, and so it all has to come down to perceived negative connotations of the word “union”. Not compelling at all, in my view.

I’m okay to drop “union” although it is sad that the word is a turn-off for funders and partners. However, Cycle Toronto does not capture the purpose of the organization. Are we are touring club? A bike store? You can’t know from “Cycle Toronto”.

There should be some element of advocacy in the name. Another poster mentioned “alliance” as a possible word to use in lieu of “union”.

Can the board please comment on the new name proposed? Is there any room for a preferential ballot on the name, with several choices, instead of just “Cycle Toronto” versus the status quo?

Thanks for the feedback, Judith. At this time, the vote is going to be for either Cycle Toronto or remaining Toronto Cyclists Union. Through the board’s research, the name Cycle Toronto seemed the best choice. That said, the official AGM information goes out in 4 days and this blog seems a great forum to propose other name options. If something looks to be strongly supported than we could possibly include it as well.

living in a Social Media fuelled city you start to learn that if people aren’t willing to look past 140 characters or click on a link to like you then you probably aren’t worth their time.

A name change to Cycle Toronto allows us to headline many marketable outlets that were not available before. Brands such as Disney, Nike, Apple do not capture their purpose in their name. However it allows them to draw in a diverse market to back whatever project or cause they set their sights on. How else would we know how to “Just Do It” or watch those stupid pirates of the Caribbean? how many of us own those stupid white headphones?

The campaign possibilities with a name like Cycle Toronto don’t have to be status quo, they can be brilliant.

140 diverse neighbourhoods and 44 unique wards are just waiting to be explored and if needed exploited by bicycle.

The fact that at first Cycle Toronto does not capture the purpose of the organization is perfect for present and future use. We don’t need to have a catch phrase type moniker if we plan on campaigning on behalf of the diverse citizens of this city.

If the Toronto Cyclists Union/Cycle Toronto is able to start and successfully finish campaigns and projects such as Saving the Jarvis Bike Lane, Connecting the Waterfront, Expanding Bixi, enhancing Eglington etc… what then?

If Toronto had an optimal infrastructure paired with enforcement would we then need to shift from advocacy to maintenance and promotion?

When Toronto is a premier cycling city we’ll need the support from not only those who choose to cycle but from everyone connected to them, that means Schools, Hospitals, Grocery stores, Bike stores, Daycares, Parks, Condos, Office Buildings and tourist attractions…etc

We cant afford to exclude them in the future so why wouldn’t we remove the roadblocks now?

If changing a name opens up avenues bring on the separated bike lanes of community support.

While I understand, and support, the elimination of the word ‘union’ from the organization title I can’t help but think that the proposed option is just a bit too weak, too much like a City department. While the word Union may have some negative connotations it at least had some power and a sense of authority behind it. You felt like you were part of something important. I just don’t get that feeling from Cycle Toronto. I have gone through the thesaurus for union equivalents without much luck. Bike Syndicate or Bike Junction are the best I saw but each also has it’s drawbacks. Tough decision and whatever is decided I will try to support.

I agree with Tim and Judith’s posts (immediately above). I would like to keep the word union in there, but, failing that, couldn’t there be something else like coalition or united or really any other word that connotes that this is some form of collective project? The name itself currently speaks volumes. Cycle Toronto speaks vagueness.

Do those three local bike shops that don’t like the word “union” know that UCI/ICU, the world governing body for sports cycling and international competitions, stands for l’Union Cycliste Internationale/International Cycling Union? And the world “union” isn’t exactly hidden: http://www.uci.ch/. Do these bike stores keep out cycling materials linked to international cycling, the world championships, the Olympics, the Paralympics? There are cities that strive to acquire the label “UCI Bike City” — Cophenhagen was the first (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/copenhagen-first-to-get-uci-bike-city-branding); Melbourne, the second (the State of Victoria made it a specific objective to acquire the label). If we were to imagine Toronto one day reaching such heights, would we have to ask the UCI to change its name?

i completely agree with Vivien. the proposed name is weak and lacks purpose. I don’t know if the word “League” would fit the bill but I think that we should consider language that proposes “collective action” or maintain the status quo.

As a member, I am very supportive of the decision to change Bike Union to Cycle Toronto. I am pretty left-wing and support working unions.

Changing our name to something a bit “vague” will enable us to further encourage cycling in the city. It is inclusive of something that would better appeal to the wider masses.

I was recently in Austin and volunteered at Bike Texas, where a good friend of mine works. Bike Texas is an amazing bike advocacy organization that is able to “sell” cycling to a very right-wing demographic.

Of the points not already brought up, the thing that speaks most to me at Cycle Toronto is that it’s a better call to action name than the Bicycle Union. Unfortunately, it’s hard for me not to associate the current name with a form of action, but not necessarily one that I have positive sentiment for (although I am supportive of Unions in principal and the positions often held by them). Cycle Toronto, conversely, is upbeat, positive and speaks to the salient point of what I feel this organization (which I’m a member of) is all about.

April mentioned BikeTexas in her post. Just for fun I spent a bit of time rummaging through their website and found this: “The mission of BikeTexas is to advance bicycle access, safety and education in Texas. BikeTexas, formerly known as Texas Bicycle Coalition, was formed in 1991 to unify the voices of thousands of bicycle enthusiasts, the bicycle industry, Texas bicycle clubs and Texas-based bicycle rides and events.”

I wonder why they felt the need for a name change. Does ‘coalition’ have the same negative connotations as ‘union’? Or did they just want a snappier name?

Currently I’m in the camp that finds CycleToronto too bland and not descriptive. The organization would have to work that much harder to make it mean something / be instantaneously associated with it actually is in the minds of the public. Hard work but not impossible. I also agree with Michael Black that its too easy to turn CycleToronto into PsychoToronto. For that reason I would prefer BikeToronto. Maybe Herb can be persuaded to give up BikeTO for a good cause?

Good point veronica about BikeTexas, I think that they wanted a more all encompassing name. This gives way to smaller organizations that can be more geared to local advocacy like http://www.lobv.org/mission-statement/ (though I personally find their name vague in terms of their area of influence).

I guess the thing to be concerned about is that you don’t lose the mission of advocacy and unification when changing your name to something more catchy and general.

While I have no reason to question the organizational challenges that may have been experienced due to funders’/partners’ perception of the word “union”, I’m anything but inspired by the proposed option of “Cycle Toronto”.

Part of what drew me to the Bike Union was that it was a place for the Toronto cycling community to come together – unite if you will – and be represented as a clear, coherent and strong voice. Together, we could advocate for better infrastructure, shared roads and the myriad benefits of biking.

I can respect the Board’s/staff’s desire to overcome the barriers of the original moniker but I would prefer to see some additional options presented to the membership.

I support the name change because Cycle Toronto is short and sweet and reaches out to all people who ride bikes in our city, or who care about those who do. To me it flows naturally from January’s strategic planning summit. The outcome of that two-day event, involving at least 80 members, was a new emphasis in our mission, vision and goals – on improving the city for all of Toronto’s diverse residents. It’s been noted already that the majority of people in Toronto cycle, but most don’t identify as “cyclists”. “Cycle Toronto” as a name puts the focus on what we DO rather than who we are, and for that reason I believe it is more open, inclusive and accessible.

From a branding and marketing standpoint i’m for “Cycle Toronto” however direction needs to be given on how as members we should be promoting the brand. If the reason for the name change is to Unite citizens across Toronto for a common cycling cause, we need to state this upfront.

Currently on the website it states as the purpose,” The Toronto Cyclists Union strives to be a strong, unified voice advocating for the rights of cyclists of all ages and from all parts of the city. We aim to shift the political culture that has resisted the changes that are needed.”

It may need some updating to something like this?

“Cycle Toronto strives to unite Toronto. Our goal is to make Toronto a safer city and advocate for the rights of citizens who choose to cycle. With one voice made from 140 diverse neighbourhoods we can make a positive change”